Latest news with #DanNeidle
Scotsman
05-08-2025
- Business
- Scotsman
Dundee United reassure fans over 'current and future operations' amid tax discussions with HMRC
United facing bill of up to £600,000 over R&D claim Sign up to our Football newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Dundee United have confirmed that they are in discussions with HMRC after being accused of using taxpayer funds to pay player wages. The allegations, made by tax lawyer Dan Neidle, relate to a Research and Development (R&D) tax claim made by the Scottish Premiership club in 2021 amounting to £1.28million. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad United were named alongside Chelsea, Nottingham Forest and Fulham among 28 sporting institutions to benefit from the scheme, which seeks to use public money to support science and technology breakthroughs. The rules state that a business is only eligible to apply if it makes an advancement that benefits the overall field. However, United are facing a bill of up to £600,000 after HMRC ordered them to repay a portion of its successful claim. Dundee United are in discussions with HMRC over repayment of a R&D tax relief claim. (Photo by Craig Williamson / SNS Group) | SNS Group Mr Neidle, who runs think tank Tax Policy Associates, branded United's R&D tax claim "outrageous" in an interview with The Courier last week after claiming to uncover documents which show the club used the scheme to cover 24 per cent of player salaries to the tune of £1.2m during the 2021-22 season, when United finished fourth in the Premiership. The claim followed the creation of The United Lab in 2020, which was set up by sporting director Tony Asghar, recruitment chief Sean McGee, performance consultant Ryland Morgans and head of research Dr Dan Parnell; all of whom have since left the club. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A statement from United on Tuesday read: "Dundee United Football Club can confirm that we remain in constructive dialogue with HMRC regarding a Research and Development (R&D) tax claim submitted in 2021. 'Fully engaged' in discussions "As this is an ongoing process, we are unable to comment further on the details of the matter at this time. However, the club is fully engaged in the discussions and remains confident in a satisfactory outcome of the process for both parties. "We would like to reassure our supporters that this historical matter has no impact on the club's current or future operations. Furthermore, the R&D initiative known as 'The Dundee United Lab' ceased operations in March 2023 and no longer exists in any form, with all personnel previously involved in the project no longer employed or affiliated with the club in any capacity.
The Independent
05-08-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Private school parents may be dodging Labour's VAT by paying fees up front
Parents of children at the UK's leading private schools may be dodging the government 's controversial VAT policy by paying fees up front. Britain's most expensive independent schools were paid hundreds of millions of pounds in fees in advance last year, before the 20 per cent tax was implemented from 1 January 2025. The country's top private schools received £515million in advance fees in 2024, marking an increase from £121million the previous year, analysis of the latest annual accounts by The Telegraph has revealed. Consequently, the richest parents might have avoided as much as £103million in the tax – and the overall figure could be far higher as there are more than 2,600 independent schools across the UK. Some parents tried to pay for five years' fees in advance. This would have taken them to the next general election when the policy could be overturned. Experts have warned the large scale of up front payments could hit the government's plans to raise revenue. Dan Neidle, the founder of Tax Policy Associates, described the level of prepaid fees as 'extremely high'. Mairéad Warren de Búrca, managing director at Alvarez and Marsal Tax, told The Telegraph: 'It's not surprising that schools would have done this type of thing with parents and maybe encouraged parents to jump on the prepayment bandwagon. 'Only the very rich can afford to make those advance payments, or those with extensive wealth … so I'm not entirely sure they [the government] have managed to do what they intended to do.' However, the treasury said the use of prepayment schemes was factored into the forecasts made by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) when estimating how much money could be raised by the VAT policy. Fees paid via prepayment schemes, which are used to pay for one or more years of a student's education up front, have surged across the country's most expensive schools, according to the analysis. Brighton College, the UK's most costly independent school, received £50.1million in prepaid fees last year, an increase from £4.1million the previous year, the findings showed, with the number of pupils under the advance scheme increasing from 86 in 2023 to 819 the following year. Meanwhile, fees paid in advance at Eton College, where fees may cost over £63,000 in 2026, shot up from £16.6million in 2023 to £52.7million the next year, the research found. Labour has insisted that its VAT raid is aimed at the UK's richest families, with more than £1.8billion per year set to be raised for state schools by the end of the decade. But critics argue it is smaller independent schools that are likely to be hit the worst by the policy. The Telegraph reported that more than 50 private schools have already either closed or announced they will soon after the VAT policy was imposed, while the government estimates 100 schools could shut over the next three years. A UK government spokesperson told the newspaper: 'The Office for Budget Responsibility has already factored in the increased use of prepayment schemes in its revenue forecasts. 'Removing tax breaks for private schools is expected to raise £1.8bn a year by 2029-30. 'This funding will help us recruit 6,500 new teachers and improve standards in state schools, which educate 94 per cent of children.'
NDTV
31-07-2025
- Business
- NDTV
UK Introduced A 75% Tax, But No One's Ever Paid a Penny. Here's Why
The Public Interest Business Protection Tax (PIBPT) is a special UK tax law that was introduced in 2022. It's surprising because it has never actually collected any money since it started, according to The Metro. This tax was created during a chaotic time when energy prices were soaring after Covid and Russia invaded Ukraine. Its main purpose wasn't to raise funds for the government. Instead, it was designed to act as a strong warning to energy companies. The idea was to stop them from making decisions that could cause them to fail, which would then leave the public to deal with the mess and costs. Think of it as a legal threat to prevent big problems, rather than a way to get tax money. Why Was It Introduced? According to The Metro, the 2022 Finance Act introduced PIBPT to prevent large businesses specifically those with over 100 million pounds in turnover-from shifting or cashing in valuable energy contracts just before an energy supplier entered administration. Such practices, according to HMRC, would have pushed massive costs onto the government and consumers and potentially disrupted the energy supply. A Tax Used As A Warning Experts believe the tax filled a gap left by slow-moving regulators like Ofgem. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, called it "a weird measure" that used taxation in place of timely regulation. Others argue it was easier to introduce a tax than to get fast action from existing watchdogs. Today's quiz. There's a tax on the UK statute book that nobody has ever paid. Not once since it was introduced. What is it? The prize is a lifetime subscription to the Tax Policy Associates newsletter. — Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle) July 25, 2025 Though aimed at energy firms, the law includes provisions to extend its reach to other industries considered vital to public interest. Why No One Ever Paid With a steep rate of 75%, the tax was intimidating enough to work exactly as intended. No major companies crossed the asset-shifting line, and PIBPT was never triggered making it one of the most effective yet unused taxes in UK history.
Metro
30-07-2025
- Business
- Metro
There's a 'weird' tax in the UK that nobody has ever paid
People say that death and taxes are the only certainties in life, but it seems that only one of those is true. It turns out, there is a tax currently on the UK statute book that no one has ever paid, and it has never generated even a penny of revenue. Not a single one. It's the Public Interest Business Protection Tax, and, no, we'd never heard of it either. If you're wondering how it's possible that a tax was passed into law but never collected, there's actually some pretty clear logic behind it. The Public Interest Business Protection Tax (PIBPT) is something of a unique concept within the UK tax system, as it was originally, in some sense, not to be revenue-raising. Introduced in the Finance Act of 2022, the tax was presented as a deterrent to discourage large businesses (over £100 million) from taking actions that might lead to the collapse of energy companies. This was all amid huge uncertainty of the energy markets in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video These actions could have included transferring or cashing in valuable energy contracts within a corporate group, just before an energy supplier entered administration. In the HMRC summary of the tax, it states that 'such arrangements would lead to substantial increased cost falling on the government and energy consumers and would also risk disruption to the supply of energy'. Simply put, when energy suppliers collapse, the risk to the public purse goes up, and the government wanted to guard against any shady business moves that might see companies profit off that happening. Speculating on the need for the tax, and posting on X, 'tax realist' and founder of Tax Policy Associates, Dan Neidle said, 'I'd never heard of the Public Interest Business Protection Tax before this morning. 'It's a very weird measure which is using a tax to do the job of the energy regulator, presumably because the energy regulator was being too slow.' This theory is seemingly supported by a comment from a website on resources for accountants and advisors, which said, 'The government acted [with PIPBT] as it recognises that Ofgem cannot react quickly enough and this draws the question, why it is easier to create and impose a new tax than it is to enforce regulatory body actions?' More Trending While the legislation currently applies only to energy supply companies, it includes provisions that could allow future extension to 'other public interest businesses' deemed essential for the public good. If you think your last payslip on income tax gave you a raw deal, then you'll be glad you never had to pay PIBPT, as it ran at 75%. Today's quiz. There's a tax on the UK statute book that nobody has ever paid. Not once since it was is it?The prize is a lifetime subscription to the Tax Policy Associates newsletter. — Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle) July 25, 2025 Put simply, the reason the tax was never collected upon was that it seemingly did its job as a deterrent. View More » While several large energy suppliers collapsed during the market uncertainty, none of those cases involved the specific 'asset-shifting' actions above the £100 million threshold that would have triggered the PIBPT. Do you have a story to share? Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@ MORE: Martin Lewis' MSE warns parents with kids aged 47 to 15 they could be owed thousands MORE: HMRC doesn't know how much tax billionaires in the UK pay Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
The Independent
08-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Why experts think a UK wealth tax is ‘naive'
Experts caution that a wealth tax to address the UK's public finance deficit would be "naive" and largely ineffective, citing a lack of success stories internationally. Leading tax lawyer Dan Neidle suggests a wealth tax could detrimentally affect the UK's overall tax revenue, arguing it is arrogant to assume the UK could succeed where other nations have failed. Economists highlight the significant practical challenges of implementing a wealth tax, including complex asset valuation, high administrative costs, and potential liquidity issues for taxpayers. IFS economist Stuart Adam said most developed countries have abandoned annual wealth taxes, with experts advocating for alternative reforms to capital income taxes as more realistic. Concerns exist that a wealth tax might prompt wealthy individuals to reallocate assets or alter their residency status, potentially leading to a net loss for the Treasury rather than increased revenue.
